I'm pointing out that she forged his yearbook signature which is what Moore has been claiming all along.

No she didn't. That is the false claim you are making. What was added later was "12-22-77 Olde Hickory House". The signature and all the rest was all him, and she has repeatedly offered it up to handwriting experts to verify.

The stuff that was added is the same type of things people add to items of significance all the time. I have loads of photos with date and location written on the back. Pretty sure most people do.

Also, the yearbook was not the "smoking gun" that he assaulted her. You need to stop getting your information from Breitbart. What it was a "smoking gun" for was his claim that he didn't know her at all and had never met her. She pulled out the yearbook to show that he did have a personal relationship with her at that time and was familiar enough with her to write such a personal message.

In other words the yearbook doesn't prove that he assaulted her, it proves that he is a liar. And yet you take the word of a proven liar over the word of numerous women making the same claim independently.

As for why she would have him sign her yearbook, she was a kid at the time. Which is the damn point. Kids don't always fully understand what is happening or how they are being used at the time. It is later when they realize "hey, that was fucked up." Many times they are just excited to be getting attention from an older man at the time. This is why we as a society have determined that this is repugnant behavior.

As for evidence, you have a bunch of eye witnesses giving testimony along with contemporary accounts that set up a pattern of behavior that gives veracity to the claims.

So in other words there is no evidence there is heresay. From 40 years ago. If you ever brought "evidence" like this to court you'd get laughed at right before the case was thrown out of court.

Not too mention that people are convicted of crimes on the basis of live testimony every day. It's called evidence. It's the most common type of evidence there is.

Maybe Stonington should go watch some Perry Mason episodes. It's on every day on FETV. Sure it's fiction but he'd still learn more about our legal system than he knows now. Anything is more than zero.

That's not proof, that's not even evidence. So you get your facts from a TV show. Guess I'm not surprised at all about that. I am, however, more surprised that you admit that. For someone who knows nothing you sure act like your opinions mean something.

Perry Mason. LOL. This guy watches TV shows and gets his interpretation of the law from it.

Then maybe you need a dictionary. You're not as smart as you give yourself credit for.

Someone who is recounting specifically what they have seen is not committing hearsay. They are providing witness testimony (aka: evidence).

In this case the accusers are doing just that, they are providing an account of criminal behavior (or just behavior in general) that they witnessed first hand. That is not, in any way, considered hearsay.

Now, this is where it gets complicated, and is likely so far beyond you that you won't understand, but I will explain anyways for any reader that is actually interested:

The accounts of third parties who are repeating only what they were told by the victim would be hearsay if the question is directly about whether or not these accounts actually happened. And then the hearsay is only about things heard, not personally witnessed. So the mother of the 14 year old who has stated that she saw Moore and her daughter together in a relationship is not committing hearsay.

The others are not committing hearsay for a different reason. What others heard about relationships from the victims can't be used as direct evidence of guilt, but they can be used as evidence to refute a claim by the accused. In this case they are being used to refute the idea that these women are lying and making up the story now for political reasons. So what they are actually providing is eyewitness testimony that the victim discussed these events at the time and not just making it up now. This is evidence of chronology to refute attemps to discredit the accuser. That means it is not "hearsay" since their only claim is when the victim made the claim, not whether or not the claim is true.

Moore accuser Beverly Nelson has admitted that she lied about the writing in the yearbook in which she originally claimed was written by Moore. It was forged by her. That's a pretty damning admission.

To be clear, she says that she added the date and the name of the restaurant, but that the rest was written by Roy Moore.

Unfortunately this is what happens when Gloria Allred tries to take the spotlight, The Washington Post did a very carefully, well-sourced story about Roy Moore's terrible behavior in his thirties. Then Ms. Allred comes along and finds another woman who she parades in front of the camera. If she had mentioned when they first stepped in front of the cameras that the last two lines were written by the woman this would not have been an issue. But they didn't and now it gives the Roy Moore apologists something to not only claim that this women was lying, but that all of the other women were lying as well. They weren't, of course, but for people who want to believe Roy Moore one omission goes a long way towards making them feel less guilty about supporting him for so long.

They weren't, of course, but for people who want to believe Roy Moore one omission goes a long way towards making them feel less guilty about supporting him for so long.

But was it really an omission? I mean, when you look at it the date and location are clearly written by someone other than the person who signed the yearbook. They may have not realized that it needed to be spelled out for people...

The Democratic pundits on the CNN shows are shouting "child molester" at every opportunity with regard to Moore and I see it being used here. But wouldn't it normally be reported as "sex with a minor" (as in all those teacher/student cases)? It seems like it could be counter-productive to use what people may consider an inaccurate term, when the accurate one would be looked at as sufficiently bad. And being able to charge child molestation seems to have taken away all or most of the talk about the sexual assault charge levied against Moore.

The Democratic pundits on the CNN shows are shouting "child molester" at every opportunity with regard to Moore and I see it being used here. But wouldn't it normally be reported as "sex with a minor" (as in all those teacher/student cases)? It seems like it could be counter-productive to use what people may consider an inaccurate term, when the accurate one would be looked at as sufficiently bad. And being able to charge child molestation seems to have taken away all or most of the talk about the sexual assault charge levied against Moore.

What he is being accused of would be "sexual abuse of a minor". This is also sometimes referred to as "child molestation".

The term "sex with a minor" typically is used in specific cases where the peraon is over the age of consent (16 in many states) but the relationship was with someone who had authority over them (like a teacher) which makes it illegal if they are a minor.

It is also used for situations where someone is under age but had willingly participated of their own free will (assuming post-pubescent as under a certain age that is considered impossible)

When the minor is not a willing participant (or they are under a certain age) it is almost always refered to as "child sexual assault" or "sexual molestation". So why would people not refer to Roy Moore as a child molester if they believe the woman's account? She was 14 and was not a willing participant.

Fox News has since updated the story with a note at the bottom of the piece while removing any references to “forgery” in it.

_________________Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.

The Democratic pundits on the CNN shows are shouting "child molester" at every opportunity with regard to Moore and I see it being used here. But wouldn't it normally be reported as "sex with a minor" (as in all those teacher/student cases)? It seems like it could be counter-productive to use what people may consider an inaccurate term, when the accurate one would be looked at as sufficiently bad. And being able to charge child molestation seems to have taken away all or most of the talk about the sexual assault charge levied against Moore.

What he is being accused of would be "sexual abuse of a minor". This is also sometimes referred to as "child molestation".

The term "sex with a minor" typically is used in specific cases where the person is over the age of consent (16 in many states) but the relationship was with someone who had authority over them (like a teacher) which makes it illegal if they are a minor.

It is also used for situations where someone is under age but had willingly participated of their own free will (assuming post-pubescent as under a certain age that is considered impossible)

When the minor is not a willing participant (or they are under a certain age) it is almost always referred to as "child sexual assault" or "sexual molestation". So why would people not refer to Roy Moore as a child molester if they believe the woman's account? She was 14 and was not a willing participant.

What is woman's account? They had her friend on CNN last night who said that she was trying to convince her not to date Moore again. It was said that she snuck out of her house to go on a date with Moore. The friend said something like the 14 year old had resisted his advances and also said that she advised her not to go on a date with him again because he was too old. I didn't hear the friend say that a rape or sexual assault had taken place. I also saw a "coming up, an interview with" clip on TV where the 14 year old was shown saying "he seduced me". If she is an unwilling participant on a date then it to me becomes rape or sexual assault - not "molestation".

The Democratic pundits on the CNN shows are shouting "child molester" at every opportunity with regard to Moore and I see it being used here. But wouldn't it normally be reported as "sex with a minor" (as in all those teacher/student cases)? It seems like it could be counter-productive to use what people may consider an inaccurate term, when the accurate one would be looked at as sufficiently bad. And being able to charge child molestation seems to have taken away all or most of the talk about the sexual assault charge levied against Moore.

What he is being accused of would be "sexual abuse of a minor". This is also sometimes referred to as "child molestation".

The term "sex with a minor" typically is used in specific cases where the person is over the age of consent (16 in many states) but the relationship was with someone who had authority over them (like a teacher) which makes it illegal if they are a minor.

It is also used for situations where someone is under age but had willingly participated of their own free will (assuming post-pubescent as under a certain age that is considered impossible)

When the minor is not a willing participant (or they are under a certain age) it is almost always referred to as "child sexual assault" or "sexual molestation". So why would people not refer to Roy Moore as a child molester if they believe the woman's account? She was 14 and was not a willing participant.

What is woman's account? They had her friend on CNN last night who said that she was trying to convince her not to date Moore again. It was said that she snuck out of her house to go on a date with Moore. The friend said something like the 14 year old had resisted his advances and also said that she advised her not to go on a date with him again because he was too old. I didn't hear the friend say that a rape or sexual assault had taken place. I also saw a "coming up, an interview with" clip on TV where the 14 year old was shown saying "he seduced me". If she is an unwilling participant on a date then it to me becomes rape or sexual assault - not "molestation".

The 14 year old was "dating" him. But while that was happening at one point, according to her, there was sexual contact against her will. Whether she continued to date him or not is immaterial. Sexual assault of a child is called "child molestation". If there is penetration, which has not been asserted in this case, sometimes it is reffered to as "rape of a child".

This is her account:

"Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

"I wanted it over with — I wanted out," she remembers thinking. "Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over." Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did."

By her own words she was not a fully willing participant (because she is under the age of concent there is no "ambiguity" defense allowed, if she says she wasn't comfortable with it she is considered "non-willing". There is no "reasonable person wouldn't know she was not okay with it" defense in these type of cases).

Thus, what she describes happening is "sexual abuse of a child", aka "child molestation".

The Democratic pundits on the CNN shows are shouting "child molester" at every opportunity with regard to Moore and I see it being used here. But wouldn't it normally be reported as "sex with a minor" (as in all those teacher/student cases)? It seems like it could be counter-productive to use what people may consider an inaccurate term, when the accurate one would be looked at as sufficiently bad. And being able to charge child molestation seems to have taken away all or most of the talk about the sexual assault charge levied against Moore.

What he is being accused of would be "sexual abuse of a minor". This is also sometimes referred to as "child molestation".

The term "sex with a minor" typically is used in specific cases where the person is over the age of consent (16 in many states) but the relationship was with someone who had authority over them (like a teacher) which makes it illegal if they are a minor.

It is also used for situations where someone is under age but had willingly participated of their own free will (assuming post-pubescent as under a certain age that is considered impossible)

When the minor is not a willing participant (or they are under a certain age) it is almost always referred to as "child sexual assault" or "sexual molestation". So why would people not refer to Roy Moore as a child molester if they believe the woman's account? She was 14 and was not a willing participant.

What is woman's account? They had her friend on CNN last night who said that she was trying to convince her not to date Moore again. It was said that she snuck out of her house to go on a date with Moore. The friend said something like the 14 year old had resisted his advances and also said that she advised her not to go on a date with him again because he was too old. I didn't hear the friend say that a rape or sexual assault had taken place. I also saw a "coming up, an interview with" clip on TV where the 14 year old was shown saying "he seduced me". If she is an unwilling participant on a date then it to me becomes rape or sexual assault - not "molestation".

The 14 year old was "dating" him. But while that was happening at one point, according to her, there was sexual contact against her will. Whether she continued to date him or not is immaterial. Sexual assault of a child is called "child molestation". If there is penetration, which has not been asserted in this case, sometimes it is reffered to as "rape of a child".

This is her account:

"Alone with Corfman, Moore chatted with her and asked for her phone number, she says. Days later, she says, he picked her up around the corner from her house in Gadsden, drove her about 30 minutes to his home in the woods, told her how pretty she was and kissed her. On a second visit, she says, he took off her shirt and pants and removed his clothes. He touched her over her bra and underpants, she says, and guided her hand to touch him over his underwear.

"I wanted it over with — I wanted out," she remembers thinking. "Please just get this over with. Whatever this is, just get it over." Corfman says she asked Moore to take her home, and he did."

By her own words she was not a fully willing participant (because she is under the age of concent there is no "ambiguity" defense allowed, if she says she wasn't comfortable with it she is considered "non-willing". There is no "reasonable person wouldn't know she was not okay with it" defense in these type of cases).

Thus, what she describes happening is "sexual abuse of a child", aka "child molestation".

I still think you and the pundits should use a different phrase; People associate "child molestation" with elementary school kids, not 14-year-olds who sneak out of the house to date a 32-year-old and are “ expecting candlelight and roses".

I still think you and the pundits should use a different phrase; People associate "child molestation" with elementary school kids, not 14-year-olds who sneak out of the house to date a 32-year-old and are “ expecting candlelight and roses".

This is bordering on a disgusting position that I am hoping that you don't mean. You seem to be saying that because she was "dating" him and snuck out it wasn't as bad of a crime as it would have been if she wasn't. Nevermind that she was a child who was sexually assaulted, who legally couldn't consent anyways.

No. I will use the most accurate term for what he is accused of, and that is "sexual abuse of a child" or "child molestation". Trying to make it seem like she was a participant in her own abuse is disgusting and shouldn't enter the conversation and we should make this clear with our terminology.

I still think you and the pundits should use a different phrase; People associate "child molestation" with elementary school kids, not 14-year-olds who sneak out of the house to date a 32-year-old and are “ expecting candlelight and roses".

This is bordering on a disgusting position that I am hoping that you don't mean. You seem to be saying that because she was "dating" him and snuck out it wasn't as bad of a crime as it would have been if she wasn't. Nevermind that she was a child who was sexually assaulted, who legally couldn't consent anyway.

I am saying that "child molestation" normally (at least to me) refers to the sexual touching of a pre-puberty human (the most common use of "child") and that the term seems misplaced for a post-puberty girl in this situation.

Quote:

No. I will use the most accurate term for what he is accused of, and that is "sexual abuse of a child" or "child molestation". Trying to make it seem like she was a participant in her own abuse is disgusting and shouldn't enter the conversation and we should make this clear with our terminology.

I am "trying to make it seem like" it is a different situation than when an uncle sexually touches a 5-year-old at the Christmas holiday celebration and in my opinion should have a different term.

I am "trying to make it seem like" it is a different situation than when an uncle sexually touches a 5-year-old at the Christmas holiday celebration and in my opinion should have a different term.

Why? They are on the same level of wrongness so there is no need to differentiate. A 14 year old is still a child. If someone is convicted for what we commonly call "statutory rape" or "sex with a minor" it normally carries a lighter sentence than "child molestation". What Moore is being accused of is the later with the higher legal penalty. Why should our terminology not make that clear? It is essential to make clear that she was not willing. It is also essential to make clear that she was not some 16 or 17 year old who would have been over the age of consent in Alabama, which "minor" brings to mind. So, would you perfer the term "sexual assault of a child"?

I've seen people questioning why it took 40 years for these now women to come forward with their stories. well, simply because no one had asked them. they werer obviously willing to push the experience of being stalked* & groomed by Moore to the back of their lives & carry on. but this time is different b/c he's running for a national office. and people went looking.

WAPO set out to find out if all the rumors over the years had any legs. they located & spoke with these women, separately, researched their stories & put out the article(s).

this was a highly sourced story. no fuckery unless you count the Project Veritas woman who was trying to make a WAPO reporter think the stories were made up. she was busted for the vile human that she is. and lets not forget James O'Keefe's part in trying to disseminate her lies.

Moore sets up a moral comparison in his final ad: A person who is accused without any corroborating evidence of hitting on a 14 year old girl 38 years ago, versus a person who today advocates killing 9 month old babies.

Which of course is a totally false equivalent. One was a volitional act by Moore for which he was solely and directly responsible, the other is the law of the land as laid down by the Supreme Court as a Constitutional right, which of course Moore doesn't accept.

He might as well set up a phony comparison of which is worse, a man who last week was seen on video and before 50 eyewitnesses committing armed robbery of a Birmingham bank and killing a guard and three customers in the process, or a man who opposes overturning Roe v Wade? To Moore and his followers the answer is the same as to the one in his ad. He's counting on it being the same.

The Supreme Court has never said there's an absolute right to have an abortion immediately before birth, which Jones advocates. Even Clinton, Obama and Planned Parenthood don't advocate that.

Meanwhile, on to the schizophrenic final polling. Published today, an Emerson poll has Moore up 9 points while a Fox poll has Jones up 10 points. I'll give the most credence to Trafalgar because they were the most accurate in the presidential race.

Now it turns out that Moore thinks things would be a whole lot better if all the Constitutional Amendments past 10 were eliminated. Also, thought the last time when America was great was during slavery. I think that is a bigger problem than cruising the malls for teenage girls, though both are bad. If Moore wins, I suggest we allow Alabama to secede from the US again.

Good thing the voters in Alabama aren't being manipulated by outsiders...

_________________Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.

Consistent with my lifetime practice of getting information from as close to the original source as possible, whenever possible, I wanted to hear Moore for myself. I had only heard him speak at a rally once before.

Bannon is an interesting mix of intellectual and street fighter. He spoke mainly about Trump and Trumpism before distilling those thoughts into the policy and political framework of Moore's candidacy. Moore's wife, who met him in a bible class, did a good job of rebutting several media distortions about her husband.

Moore is not a polished or eloquent speaker. He probably spoke above the heads of many of the red-meaters in the audience by quoting at length, and from memory, from Samuel Adams, FDR, Lincoln and the bible.

Moore professes that "duty, honor and country" -- inculcated into him on the plains of West Point -- are the values that have framed most of his adult life. Behind that, seems a genuine belief in the overarching importance of god in the life of our country, our society, our Constitution and our laws. He laments the evils that have replaced a forsaken god.

He also recited a poem he wrote 10 years ago, which sort of sums him up:

America the Beautiful
By Judge Roy Moore

America the Beautiful, or so you used to be,
Land of the Pilgrims’ pride, I’m glad they’re not here to see,
Babies piled in dumpsters, abortion on demand,
Oh, sweet land of liberty, your house is on the sand.

Your children wander aimlessly poisoned by cocaine,
Choosing to indulge their lusts, when God has said abstain.
From sea to shining sea this Nation has turned away,
From the teaching of God’s Law, and a need to always pray.

So many worldly pastors telling lies about our Rock,
Saying God is going broke so they can fleece the flock.
We’ve kept God in our temples, how foolish we have grown,
When all the earth is but His footstool, and Heaven is His throne.

We’ve voted in governments that are rotting to the core,
Appointing Godless judges who throw reason out the door.
Too soft to put a killer in a well deserved tomb,
But brave enough to kill that child before he leaves the womb.

You think that God’s not angry, that our land’s a moral slum?
How much longer will it be before His judgment comes?
And how can we face our God, from Whom we cannot hide?
What is left for us to do, but stem this evil tide!

For if we who are His children, will humbly turn and pray,
If we seek His holy face, and mend our evil way,
Then God will hear from Heaven and forgive us of our sins.
He’ll heal our sickly land and those who live within.

But, America the beautiful, if you don’t then you will see,
A sad but Holy God withdraw His hand from Thee.

Consistent with my lifetime practice of getting information from as close to the original source as possible, whenever possible, I wanted to hear Moore for myself. I had only heard him speak at a rally once before.

On one side, anyway. Your posts suggest you haven't been listening to Doug Jones directly.

_________________Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.

The Republican Party: Fighting Gay Marriage Equality on the basis that it will lead to pedophilia, while fighting to elect a pedophile into office. God Bless America!

and don't forget him telling his supporters it's time to get back to god. this is no doubt exactly what he was praying on (rhymes with . . . ?) when the adult, married man was laying blankets on the living room floor for the teenage girl.

_________________Is the relinquishment of the trial by jury and the liberty of the press necessary for your liberty? Will the abandonment of your most sacred rights tend to the security of your liberty? Liberty, the greatest of all earthly blessings—give us that precious jewel, and you may take every thing else!… Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel.